More of a whimpering whine that Giberson and Collins did not spell out every molecule involved in a molecular recipe for an eye.
Carefully reading and comprehending links before you post them might help you avoid the appearance of a 'spray and pray' debating style.
Personal attacks don't impress. The "evolutionary scenarios" for the eye are pure speculation---"Just So" stories that are highly improbable (if not impossible) with not a shred of empirical proof. None of the scenarious imagined has a shred of laboratory evidence to support it. It is just so much wishful thinking.
Don't you ever tire of short stroking into the argumentum ad ignorantiam illogical fallacy sand trap? It is as if you have a neurochemotaxic attraction response to them.
Do you ever tire of misunderstanding logical fallacies---and making personal insults? It appears not.
Last edited by RobJordan; 11/18/13.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
No one is arguing that complexity does not exist. Just that ID is the least compelling explanation for it.
The actual state of things is the exact opposite: the mechanistic, Darwinian "explanation" is no explanation at all; just a series of ad hoc "Just So Stories" which seeks, by a priori philosophic commitment to exclude any rival explanation. It is no longer a search for truth, but dogmatic adherence to philosophy masquerading as science.
Last edited by RobJordan; 11/18/13.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
No one is arguing that complexity does not exist. Just that ID is the least compelling explanation for it.
The actual state of things is the exact opposite: the mechanistic, Darwinian "explanation" is no explanation at all; just a series of ad hoc "Just So Stories" which seeks, by a priori philosophic commitment to exclude any rival explanation. It is no longer a search for truth, but dogmatic adherence to philosophy masquerading as science.
If the creations possess ideas with greater explanatory power, why don't they publish them in peer reviewed journals?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
No one is arguing that complexity does not exist. Just that ID is the least compelling explanation for it.
The actual state of things is the exact opposite: the mechanistic, Darwinian "explanation" is no explanation at all; just a series of ad hoc "Just So Stories" which seeks, by a priori philosophic commitment to exclude any rival explanation. It is no longer a search for truth, but dogmatic adherence to philosophy masquerading as science.
Interestingly, the concept of ID itself appears to be undergoing Darwinian selection. ID's fitness as an rival explanation to Darwin seems to lack robustness and long term viability in the world of Science which it wants to live. For example the ID on-line organ, Bio-Complexity that you cited, appears to be to be on life-support if not dead. Curious, does it have any fertile progeny?
Ironic, neh?
Oh yeah, almost forgot to add as another example of ID's lack of fitness, Kitzmiller and the electorate of Dover, PA that booted ID out of it's school system.
No one is arguing that complexity does not exist. Just that ID is the least compelling explanation for it.
The actual state of things is the exact opposite: the mechanistic, Darwinian "explanation" is no explanation at all; just a series of ad hoc "Just So Stories" which seeks, by a priori philosophic commitment to exclude any rival explanation. It is no longer a search for truth, but dogmatic adherence to philosophy masquerading as science.
Interestingly, the concept of ID itself appears to be undergoing Darwinian selection. ID's fitness as an rival explanation to Darwin seems to lack robustness and long term viability in the world of Science which it wants to live. For example the ID on-line organ, Bio-Complexity that you cited, appears to be to be on life-support if not dead. Curious, does it have any fertile progeny?
Ironic, neh?
Bingo!! Scientific truth is determined by its popularity---not on the soundness of its premises, conclusions or evidence. Thank you for proving my point.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
The actual state of things is the exact opposite: the mechanistic, Darwinian "explanation" is no explanation at all; just a series of ad hoc "Just So Stories" which seeks, by a priori philosophic commitment to exclude any rival explanation. It is no longer a search for truth, but dogmatic adherence to philosophy masquerading as science.
Interestingly, the concept of ID itself appears to be undergoing Darwinian selection. ID's fitness as an rival explanation to Darwin seems to lack robustness and long term viability in the world of Science which it wants to live. For example the ID on-line organ, Bio-Complexity that you cited, appears to be to be on life-support if not dead. Curious, does it have any fertile progeny?
Ironic, neh? [/quote]
Bingo!! Scientific truth is determined by its popularity---not on the soundness of its premises, conclusions or evidence. Thank you for proving my point. [/quote]
Popularity, perhaps. If ID had any real testable validity, it would be more popular.
Of course, you are being deliberately obtuse. Heliocentrism replaced Geocentrism--and it took many hundred years for that to occur. That is the comparison I was making, as you well know. Which theory is "winning" at any given moment tells us nothing about whether it is correct.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
Of course, you are being deliberately obtuse. Heliocentrism replaced Geocentrism--and it took many hundred years for that to occur. That is the comparison I was making, as you well know. Which theory is "winning" at any given moment tells us nothing about whether it is correct.
Correctness is, in large part, a function of its predictive value. ID has none.
I'll take a shot at some predictions based on ID. Irreducible complexity arguments for ID will continue to be more narrowly focused as biological understanding increases. The more that is known, the less complex these biological systems seem to become. Irreducible complexity is just another version of argument from ignorance claiming cellular structure is too complex to have evolved.
Lots of things that were once thought too complex to understand are now very well understood and there is no reason why biological systems would be any different. Advances in genetic engineering will be unrecognizable in 20 years to today's level of understanding just like today's is from 20 years ago.
The ID arguments as we know them today will "evolve" accordingly though and there will be new arguments for a creator based on the then current level of understanding. This cycle has been going on since the geocentric vs. heliocentric days and beyond. It's the god of the gaps argument. The gaps keep getting smaller but there will always be unknowns so something new will become irreducibly complex and therefore an argument for a creator. Belief in a creator god is a personal issue of faith.
Bingo!! Scientific truth is determined by its popularity---not on the soundness of its premises, conclusions or evidence. Thank you for proving my point.
You miss represent science. A scientific theory is never "right", it just hasn't been proven wrong. If we collect a larger data set that proves a theory wrong, it is no longer a theory.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Nice try 12. 